Free throw violation?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Would you extend it to a jump ball as well, so that if a player on the circle reached into the circle and touched the floor before the ball it tapped, you would consider that a violation?

That's logical imo also.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't see how we can assume the same thing applies to the shooter when it is specified to be just for the players along the lane.

No, it was a clarification that was intended to clarify the point that if you touch the floor in the lane, you've left your spot and are in the lane. It wasn't added as a new "rule" for those on the lane. There is no reason to only apply it to just one group when the unclarified rules were essentially identical.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, it was a clarification that was intended to clarify the point that if you touch the floor in the lane, you've left your spot and are in the lane. It wasn't added as a new "rule" for those on the lane. There is no reason to only apply it to just one group when the unclarified rules were essentially identical.

My initial analysis was based on a flawed memory of the wording. I thought the wording was more along the lines of, "may not leave the lane space or touch the floor outside of the lane space." Instead, the new wording equates touching the floor outside the space with leaving the space. Seems a good enough precedent to me.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is no reason to only apply it to just one group when the unclarified rules were essentially identical.

But there is more to the story. The shooter is obviously the most important player involved in the free throw. Therefore, he is subject to at least one different consideration. (10-3-5c) Why it is a given that all other considerations should necessarily be the same?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But there is more to the story. The shooter is obviously the most important player involved in the free throw. Therefore, he is subject to at least one different consideration. (10-3-5c) Why it is a given that all other considerations should necessarily be the same?

Both are required to remain in their space until the FT hits something. In one case, they define that touching the floor outside of your space is the same as leaving that space. Why would that concept not apply to the shooter?

The same concept applies just about EVERYWHERE else on the court....OOB vs. Inbounds, FC vs BC, 2-point vs 3-point. Why would it not apply in this one narrow case?


Here are the ones I can think of...some are explicit, other are implicit.

• If you're supposed to be OOB (throwin) and touch inbounds, you're inbounds.
• If you're supposed to be inbounds and touch OOB, you're OOB.
• If touch the BC, you're in the BC.
• If touch inside the 3-point arc, you're inside the 3-point arc.
• If touch inside the lane (for 3 seconds), you're inside the lane.
• If you're supposed to be in a marked lane space and touch outside of the marked lane space, you are outside of the lane space.
• If you are supposed to be in the center circle (jump ball) and touch outside of the circle, you are outside of the circle.

These are all consistent...what basis suggest it would be any different for the FT shooter?

• If you are supposed to be in the FT semi-circle (for FTs) and touch outside of the semi-circle, you are outside of the circle.

These all sum up to the following: touching a location outside of where a player is required to be makes that the player's location.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Both are required to remain in their space until the FT hits something. In one case, they define that touching the floor outside of your space is the same as leaving that space. Why would that concept not apply to the shooter?

I don't know why, but since the rule book specifies one but not the other, that is the end of the story for me. If it was a case play which specifies one, I agree we would apply it to the other.

If you are supposed to be in the FT semi-circle (for FTs) and touch outside of the semi-circle, you are outside of the circle.

He can bounce the ball outside the semi-circle without penalty.

So...........

[Adam]

And an inbounder may bounce the ball outside his spot, just not inbounds, before releasing the throwin pass.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And an inbounder may bounce the ball outside his spot, just not inbounds, before releasing the throwin pass.

We are both reaching now.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't know why, but since the rule book specifies one but not the other, that is the end of the story for me. If it was a case play which specifies one, I agree we would apply it to the other.

The CLARIFICATION simply illuminated a way a person can leave an area the were restricted to...they leave it by touching elsewhere. The only remotely likely scenario for a player touching the floor with a hand is really with players on the lane. It was never meant to establish a rule for just the players along the lane...just to clarify that if they touch with a hand, they're in. It wasn't really necessary for the shooter since shooters never fall in anticipating the rebound....but they'd still be in if they did.

The rules are intended to be consistent. When it only seems they're not consistent, short of explicit wording to the contrary, you're probably wrong.

This is one of those places where you just have apply common sense and know the spirit and intent of the rule to realize the concept mentioned in one item is a general concept that is not limited to one narrow situation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is one of those places where you just have apply common sense and know the spirit and intent of the rule to realize the concept mentioned in one item is a general concept that is not limited to one narrow situation.

I see the intent of this particular rule is to keep players from leaning into the lane to more quickly get into position to rebound. The shooter would gain no such advantage by pushing his balance to the limit. On the contrary, the quality of the shot would suffer. Therefore, such a limit on the shooter is not necessary, and, as far as I can see, not present.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I see the intent of this particular rule is to keep players from leaning into the lane to more quickly get into position to rebound. The shooter would gain no such advantage by pushing his balance to the limit. On the contrary, the quality of the shot would suffer. Therefore, such a limit on the shooter is not necessary, and, as far as I can see, not present.

Yet, the rules penalize the shooter for stepping into the lane then back before shooting.....no advantage there either.

The shooter simply can't leave the semi-circle. The only question is what constitutes leaving the semi-circle. The NFHS has established that touching the floor outside of marked lane space is equivalent to leaving that space. There is no reason the same concept doesn't apply universally.

With the enter-on-contact requirement for FTs, the rebounders can easily time their entry and don't need to lean in...and if they do such that they touch the floor before the ball hits, they'll still be on the floor when someone else gets the rebound. What advantage is that? If they touch the floor way before the ball gets there such that they have time to get back up and be ready for the rebound, they couldn't possibly have been anticipating the ball hitting the rim/board. And what advantage is that?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The NFHS has established that touching the floor outside of marked lane space is equivalent to leaving that space. There is no reason the same concept doesn't apply universally.

One very good reason. It's not in the book.

With the enter-on-contact requirement for FTs, the rebounders can easily time their entry and don't need to lean in...

But they do it anyway.

and if they do such that they touch the floor before the ball hits, they'll still be on the floor when someone else gets the rebound. What advantage is that? If they touch the floor way before the ball gets there such that they have time to get back up and be ready for the rebound, they couldn't possibly have been anticipating the ball hitting the rim/board. And what advantage is that?

Nobody wants to touch the floor. Obviously no advantage there. But if they do so, they are not allowed to reset without penalty, as specified in the rule, for the players in the lane spaces only.

If this is the intent, and perhaps it is, another clarification is in order.

"Once the ball is at the disposal of the shooter, neither the shooter nor any player in a designated lane space is allowed to leave his spot by contacting the court outside his own area."